Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved: That the minutes of the Pension Board meeting held on 20 May 2026 be approved as a true and accurate record.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
Apologies were received from Member Representative David Powell.
The interim Chair declared an interest, due to being employed by Aon, the Fund's actuarial adviser. It was confirmed that no actuarial or governance work was undertaken for the Fund and that appropriate information barriers were in place within Aon. She was not aware of any conflict that would compromise her ability to act independently as Interim Chair for the meeting.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: That the minutes of the Pension Board meeting held on 20 May 2026 be approved as a true and accurate record.
The Board considered the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2026. Board members raised no amendments. Resolved: That the minutes of the Pension Board meeting held on 20 May 2026 be approved as a true and accurate record.
· Members were advised that updates relating to the Risk Register would be addressed under the relevant agenda item later in the meeting. · The Board noted that the 2025 actuarial valuation process had been completed and the report submitted to the Scheme Advisory Board. · It was noted that the outcome of the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) Section 13 review was expected in Spring 2027 and would provide assurance that the valuation had been completed in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements.
• The Board received and noted the minutes of the Pension Investment Committee meetings held on 25 March 2026 and 25 June 2026. • Particular note was made of the Committee's consideration of the Wales Pension Partnership developments and the approved increase in the administration budget to support the additional workload arising from ongoing regulatory and operational changes. • It was noted also that the June meeting had been convened to confirm the appointment of the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair. Board members raised no questions or comments on the minutes. The Board noted the minutes.
· The pace and volume of change across the LGPS remained significant and that a separate report later on the agenda would consider the governance implications of the new regulations in greater detail. · The Board was advised that the report focused on wider operational, administration and industry developments relevant to the Fund and Pension Board. • 2.2 The LGPS Pooling Regulations 2026 and LGPS Governance Regulations 2026 came into force on 30 June 2026. • MHCLG had published supporting statutory guidance on 29 June 2026, and officers had commenced a review of the requirements and implementation priorities arising from the new regulations. • Key areas covered by the guidance included Investment Strategy Statements, asset pooling requirements, governance arrangements, knowledge and understanding requirements, independent governance reviews, and the roles of the LGPS Senior Officer and Independent Person. • The new pooling requirements represented a significant change for Welsh funds and were linked to the development of the Wales Pension Partnership Investment Management Company (IMCo). • 2.3 Minor amendments had been made to previously published regulations to correct typographical errors and cross-references within the Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2026. • Members were reminded that the regulations introduced on 30 June 2026 followed a set of regulations which had come into force in April 2026, resulting in three sets of LGPS regulations being introduced during the opening months of the financial year. • The Pension Fund Manager highlighted the significant volume of regulatory change currently affecting the LGPS, which would be reflected throughout the reports presented to the Board. [LC1] [LC2] • 2.5 The Board noted the launch of the Local Government Association (LGA) LGPS Promotion Toolkit, designed to support employers in promoting the benefits of LGPS membership to both current and prospective scheme members. The Fund would review the available resources and consider incorporating relevant materials into member communications and Fund literature. Employers would be encouraged to make use of the toolkit and promote LGPS membership amongst their workforce. • 2.6 HM Treasury had issued a fourth set of McCloud rectification tax regulations, reflecting the complexity and continuing development of the McCloud remedy programme across public sector pension schemes. • Whilst not all provisions applied to the LGPS, the regulations included changes relevant to death benefit top-up payments, annual allowance corrections and certain transfers into the LGPS. • The administration team was required to maintain an understanding not only of LGPS regulations but also of the associated pensions tax framework and its impact on scheme administration. • 2.7 Recent HMRC technical guidance on pensions taxation following the abolition of the Lifetime Allowance (LTA). The changes affected certain LGPS calculations and the treatment of Trivial Commutation Lump Sums (TCLS). The administration team would need to remain aware of the impact of these pensions tax changes on scheme administration and member benefits. • 2.8 Some employers might operate salary sacrifice Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) arrangements and changes due to come into effect in 2029 would introduce a threshold whereby National Insurance contribution savings would provide the greatest benefit. • There was no immediate requirement to engage with employers on this matter. However, discussions would be required before April 2029 to ensure employers understood the implications of the changes, particularly the introduction of a threshold that had not previously existed. • 3.1 The Scheme Advisory Board's 2025 Annual Report had been published and was linked within section 3.1. • The key message from the report was that the LGPS continued to grow, with total membership increasing to 6.81 million during 2024/25, pension payments being made to more than 2.2 million pensioners, and total assets increasing from £390 billion to £402 billion. These figures demonstrated the significant scale of the LGPS, and the responsibility associated with administering and managing the scheme effectively. • Investment management costs had increased across the LGPS, reflecting growth in assets under management, and rising administration and governance costs had also been reported. Increasing administration and governance costs mirrored local experience and reflected the significant legislative, regulatory and operational changes affecting the LGPS in recent years. • 3.4The Scheme Advisory Board was launching a new forum for Local Pension Board Chairs, with the inaugural virtual meeting scheduled for 7th September. • Due to the procurement and appointment process for an independent Chair, it could be challenging to have representation in place for the first meeting. However, every effort would be made to secure attendance, and the Board would be kept informed of progress. • The purpose of the forum was to bring together Local Pension Board Chairs from across the LGPS to share knowledge, experiences and good practice. • Collaboration had already delivered significant benefits through arrangements such as the Wales Pension Partnership and Pensions Officer Groups, and the new forum provided a further opportunity to strengthen engagement and shared learning across the LGPS. • It was anticipated that participation in the forum would be beneficial to the LGPS generally and to the Fund specifically, and that representation would be sought for future meetings if attendance at the inaugural meeting was not possible. • 3.5 The Fund remained on track to connect to the Pensions Dashboards ecosystem. Successful connection to the dashboards ecosystem represented the beginning of the process, with ongoing responsibilities and regulatory expectations to be met following implementation. • Data quality would be critical to the successful operation of the dashboards and work was underway to review the Fund's Data Quality and Data Management Policies to ensure they reflected dashboard requirements and regulatory expectations. Processes were being developed and strengthened to maintain high-quality member data and support ongoing compliance. • The potential impact of the dashboards on pension administration workloads would not be fully understood until the service became operational, making robust data management particularly important. • Significant work had already been undertaken at Fund level in preparation for the dashboards programme and the Fund remained committed to supporting members throughout its implementation. • Software providers had indicated that pensions dashboards could lead to a significant increase in member enquiries as individuals engaged more with their pension information and sought clarification regarding their records. • Increased engagement could create additional administration demands, particularly in the early stages of implementation, although this could also deliver benefits by helping members identify and claim pension entitlements that might otherwise have remained unclaimed. • Members noted that the dashboards presented both opportunities and risks, which would need to be appropriately monitored and managed. • 4.1 Further guidance from the Regulator on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the pensions industry was expected. Pending the publication of formal guidance, a best practice approach had been adopted. · Increasing numbers of members were understood to be using AI tools in relation to retirement planning. It was acknowledged that further industry-wide work was required to address the use of AI in pensions and to establish appropriate guidance for members and administrators. Consideration was being given to incorporating high-level AI-related warnings and guidance into scheme communications, such as benefit estimate letters. · Consideration was also being given to the internal use of AI by the pensions team, ensuring any use remained appropriate and compliant with the Council's AI policies and strategies. · The Board was assured that developments in this area were being monitored closely and that further guidance would be reviewed and implemented as it became available. In the interim, the key message to scheme members remained to use AI with caution and to remember that AI tools provided information in response to user inputs and should not be relied upon as financial advice. · It was agreed that training would be provided to the Board in due course. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response Board asked whether the administration team had enough resources, capacity and resilience to implement everything while continuing to run the service effectively. A resource review had been undertaken in summer 2024 and a second review was now due. Administration resources were kept under regular review, and the Committee had recently approved a budget increase to reflect the volume of ongoing changes, including the McCloud remedy work. Assurance was provided that this remained an area of close monitoring. It was noted that the proposed changes could help improve awareness of pension benefits and support fairness across the membership. It was asked whether the toolkit and related member information were available in Welsh as well as English. Officers advised that this would be looked into. Alongside concerns relating to AI and data sharing, the introduction of Pensions Dashboards could generate an initial increase in member enquiries. It was highlighted that expectations would need to be managed, particularly where members were many years from retirement, while ensuring priority was given to cases involving members approaching retirement. Concerns were also raised regarding the ability to meet response times in the event of a significant increase in enquiries, and it was suggested that any workload pressures should be communicated to the relevant industry bodies. Assurance was given that officers would monitor developments and work closely with the Fund’s management team to manage priorities and respond appropriately as implementation progressed. Board noted the report. class=WordSection2> [LC1]Just noticed there's no item 2.4 - assume that's OK as other agenda items not detailed either? [LC2]This as on the SCAPE rate update
• Two sets of regulations came into force on 30th June. While one related to pooling and investment matters, the report focused on the new governance regulations. • 2.1 Governance arrangements within the LGPS were moving from a compliance-based approach to one focused on demonstrable effectiveness and accountability, requiring clearer decision-making and audit trails, evidence of training and knowledge, and stronger documentation to support decisions taken. • 2.2 & 2.3 It was a statutory requirement to appoint a Senior LGPS Officer by December 2026 and a review of existing governance arrangements against the new regulations was already underway. The regulations placed greater emphasis on evidence-based governance, requiring robust records of decisions, training and knowledge. • 2.4 Training requirements for Pension Committee members would be strengthened and aligned with those already applicable to Pension Board members. • 2.5 The new requirement to undertake an Independent Governance Review was noted, with the completed review to be submitted to MHCLG by 31 March 2028. Preparatory work had already commenced to ensure compliance within the required timeframe. • 3. There was a requirement for the administering authority to appoint a Senior LGPS Officer by 31 December 2026. The role would provide strategic leadership across pension administration, investment management, governance and compliance, and fund resourcing and operational effectiveness, while representing the Fund's interests within the authority's senior management structure and investment pool governance arrangements. • 3.2 The Senior LGPS Officer role must be independent of the Section 151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and Head of Paid Service, creating a new statutory post with significant governance responsibilities, including oversight of governance arrangements and effective contract management. • Effective contract management within the LGPS governance framework, was of increasing importance particularly as investment pools provided a wider range of services. It was recognised that setting clear expectations, monitoring supplier performance and regularly reviewing advisory arrangements were key elements of good governance and accountability. • 3.4 The Senior LGPS Officer would be required to possess significant knowledge and experience across LGPS governance, investment, administration and wider public sector governance, with particular responsibility for ensuring appropriate training and support were provided to governing bodies, officers and other relevant individuals. • 4. The new Independent Person role would provide independent expertise, support and challenge to those exercising delegated pension functions, helping to strengthen governance effectiveness without holding decision-making responsibilities. It was noted that the role would complement, rather than replace, the responsibilities of the Pension Committee, Pension Board and officers, and could be fulfilled by either an individual or a suitably qualified organisation with a nominated representative. • Although the Independent Person role was no longer proposed as a formal member of the Pension Committee, it remained a statutory appointment and should be reflected in the Committee’s Terms of Reference as a matter of good practice. It was also noted that governance documents, including the Council’s Constitution, may need to be updated to reflect both the Independent Person and Senior LGPS Officer roles. • 6.1 There was a new requirement to undertake an Independent Governance Review and submit the completed review to MHCLG by 31 March 2028. The review would assess the effectiveness of the Fund’s governance arrangements beyond simple compliance, identifying good practice, governance weaknesses, opportunities for improvement, and any actions required to strengthen decision-making, controls and regulatory compliance. It was recognised that the review could provide a valuable tool for continuous improvement and supporting consistent governance standards across the LGPS. • 6.2 The Independent Governance Review must be undertaken by an independent provider and be free from conflicts of interest. It was recognised that the review would be a substantial piece of work rather than a simple compliance exercise, requiring careful planning, evidence gathering and sufficient lead-in time ahead of the 31 March 2028 deadline. The Pension Board would also have a role in monitoring the implementation of any actions arising from the review. • 7.1 There were a number of key actions required to comply with the new regulations, including appointing a Senior LGPS Officer and Independent Person, reviewing governance arrangements, strengthening training frameworks, developing an Independent Governance Review implementation plan, and enhancing evidence-based governance and compliance records. Much of this work was already underway, but further review would be required to ensure full compliance. The Board was invited to receive periodic progress updates and milestone reports to provide assurance that the required actions were being implemented Questions and concerns raised Officer Response A Board member queried how the new regulatory requirements (the Independent Person) would align with existing officer roles and structures, and whether they would necessitate the creation of new statutory positions. The role was distinct from that of the Pension Board and was intended to provide specialist support and challenge to the Committee. The position required extensive knowledge and experience across governance, investment and pension fund management, reflecting its advisory role in supporting decision-making. It was noted that this role would complement, rather than replace, the valuable oversight and assurance function performed by the Pension Board. What is the timetable for the independent person? The process had begun, with no definitive timescale in place. Board noted the report.
• Reviews of the Administration and Communications and Disclosure sections of the Pensions Regulator’s General Code had been completed, with work progressing on the Governing Body section. An enhanced evidence-based approach had been adopted, creating a central repository of supporting documentation and policy references to strengthen compliance, improve record-keeping and provide clear audit trails against Code requirements. • The risk management section of the Pensions Regulator’s General Code review had been completed, including consideration of how risks were identified, assessed, recorded and monitored, and the effectiveness of related internal controls. Existing arrangements had been documented to ensure that compliance assertions were supported by clear evidence, providing assurance that ongoing work was aligning practice with regulatory requirements. • The compliance review had also considered non-LGPS-specific elements of the Pensions Regulator’s General Code, enabling the Fund to identify and adopt broader industry best practice where appropriate. Benchmarking against the Code indicated a strong level of compliance, with the Fund assessed as fully compliant in three of the five modules reviewed and achieving predominantly green ratings overall, providing assurance that governance arrangements were operating effectively. • Future compliance assessments would need to reflect both the Pensions Regulator’s General Code and the LGPS Good Governance requirements. A new compliance tool incorporating both frameworks had recently been received and would be used to consolidate assessments and evidence. Despite further work being required, assurance was provided that the Fund was in a strong position from a governance perspective, particularly in the areas reviewed in detail to date. • A compliance review had identified several areas for further consideration in light of the new governance regulations, including a review of governance requirements and the Scheme of Delegation. Fund-specific Remuneration and Fees Policy were not yet in place; whilst not a statutory requirement, the development of such a policy could be considered as part of future governance enhancements. • There were opportunities to strengthen administration processes, particularly in relation to reconciling employer contributions following changes to contribution rates arising from the latest valuation. Work was underway to enhance monitoring arrangements and explore automation to improve contribution reconciliation and support the Fund’s cashflow management strategy. Board noted the report.
• All key governance decisions required for FCA authorisation of the Wales Pension Partnership Investment Management Company had been completed. Shareholder and client service agreements, the first-year budget and the initial business plan had been approved by all eight administering authorities. The legal documentation was being finalised and the company was operationally ready, with formal FCA authorisation awaited. It was further noted that implementation had been delayed from the original April timetable due to the timing of the supporting regulations, which came into force on 30 June. • Significant progress had been made in establishing the Wales Pension Partnership Investment Management Company, with key leadership, executive and non-executive positions recruited in line with FCA requirements. The FCA authorisation process was in its final stages, with all actions within the Company's control completed or ahead of schedule. The Board was assured that the necessary governance framework, legal documentation and approvals had been secured through the appropriate governance bodies, and that the company was ready to commence operations upon receipt of formal FCA authorisation. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response The Board queried what further updates could be expected on this at future meetings. The Investment Management Company was expected to be operational by the time of the Board’s next meeting, with significant progress anticipated in the coming weeks. A more substantive update would be provided once the company was fully live. There was also opportunity to arrange a joint session with the Pension Committee, enabling members to meet senior representatives of the Company and discuss its future strategic advisory role. Board noted the report.
• The Board were notified that Committee approved the three recommendations made by the Board at its last meeting, relating to the investment and governance risk registers. • It was noted that a new Governance Officer had been appointed and a review of the risk register was planned, particularly in light of the proposed Investment Management Company, to ensure effective operational arrangements, audit processes and scrutiny across both entities. It was considered an appropriate time to undertake a more detailed review of the risk register; however, this work had not yet commenced. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response The Pension Fund Manager asked the Chair whether they had any comments or advice around the risk register. • It was noted that the risk register was comparable to those used by other funds and did not require a major overhaul, provided it remained effective and aligned with Council requirements. • It was suggested that including likelihood and impact scores could provide greater transparency around overall risk ratings, although this would need to be balanced against added complexity. • It was suggested that reporting changes in risk levels since the previous review could help focus attention on risks that had increased or decreased. • It was noted that risk 002 appropriately referenced cyber security risks and could potentially be expanded to include risks associated with artificial intelligence. The Pension Fund Manager agreed to review the wording of risk 002 to consider whether risks associated with artificial intelligence should be incorporated. It was also noted that key person risk was already included within the risk register but could be expanded to reflect broader resourcing risks. The revised wording would be shared with the Board for consideration and, subject to approval, presented to Committee. ACTION • Board noted the report.
• No new risks or breaches had been identified. • It was noted that this year’s Annual Benefit Statements were required to include McCloud information. However, as work to address the McCloud backlog was ongoing, there may be cases where this requirement could not be met, and consideration may therefore need to be given to whether this constituted a reportable breach. • Ongoing software issues and other factors could affect compliance with Annual Benefit Statement requirements nationally. Further guidance from the relevant bodies would assist in determining the appropriate approach and any implications for the breaches register. The Board was advised that this issue may need to be considered further once the guidance had been published, and an update would be provided in due course. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response If McCloud information could not be provided to everyone within the benefit statements, might that be a recordable breach? It was confirmed that failure to include the required McCloud information in Annual Benefit Statements would constitute a breach of the regulations. It was noted that there may be valid reasons for any delays, such as outstanding information from third parties. Where a clear plan was in place to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe, a proportionate approach from the Regulator was anticipated, particularly given that many LGPS funds were facing similar challenges. It was also noted that guidance from the Pensions Regulator on McCloud-related breaches was expected shortly and would assist in determining the appropriate course of action. A question was raised regarding the progress of the McCloud remedy and whether completion was expected in the near future, noting that some scheme members had queried the timescales and compared progress with that of the NHS Pension Scheme. Significant progress had been made in implementing the McCloud remedy, with cases being prioritised according to need. It was noted that members were therefore at different stages of the process, and a more detailed update would be provided under the next agenda item. Board noted the report.
Board noted the dates of future meetings.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.